Reply #1: As someone who has shot films as well...

[regnaD kciN]

...I would say that I don't equate still photography and cinematography. To quote film critic Lenny Lipton, "what passes for composition in film would be decomposition in photography," and the best-shot movie is going to be far behind good still photos in terms of image quality.

I can see how a studio photographer might take inspiration from one or another Hollywood work, since they generally have a commonality of being shot in a controlled environment with heavily-manipulated light, and much studio photography tries to catch onto one or another current "style" -- which may have come from a recent popular movie. (Think of how much advertising photography a few years ago tried to emulate the "look" of The Matrix, for example.) But, for those of us whose work is predominantly in the out-of-studio realms of scenic, wildlife, or architectural photography, far better inspiration can be found in the work of other photographers (my current favorites are Galen Rowell and Tim Fitzharris) rather than in cinematography, no matter how good.